Wow. WOW. Congratulations for posting the absolute worst economic argument ever presented in the history of the world. I am in no way surprised that you have bought into Obama's solutions, given the logic on display above. Again, those closest to the energy industry simply laugh at Obama. He's a joke.
So you don't think increased usage by China and India have anything to do with energy prices? Or you don't think energy prices fluctuate by season depending on heating or driving needs? You can only increase supply a TINY amount at great cost. Demand can go from infinite to zero. Smarter to attack demand.
Listen rookie, you are out of your league. I can't believe that I actually have to explain this to someone, but it is the balance of supply and demand that sets prices. You said demand was more important in the equation. It's not. You are wrong. It's well beneath my dignity to even address your naivete. You are *well within* the Obama camp's target audience, let's just put it that way, friend.
Get your thinking cap on. My argument is that the balance of supply and demand is what sets price, you are correct. HOWEVER, supply can only be changed by VERY SMALL amounts, while demand can be changed by a lot. Therefore if you want to change the price, DEMAND is where to go. That is why Demand is more important in this case.
First off Obama's tire guage quote was in response to a question about what individuals can do to address the energy crisis. Second he's absolutely right that by taking steps like maintaining proper maintenance on our cars we can save a LOT of gas and considering how many cars there are out there I wouldn't be surprised if that does add up to more than we might get from off shore drilling. What those laughing at this are missing is that the sum affect of many consumers acting in the market to drive down demand, in fact its already working since gas prices have been dropping recently due to people driving less. Also unlike off shore drilling conservation is a proven strategy that will yield rapid results. Oil reserves off shore aren't fully proven and will take years to come online. All that said though I can understand why this is an easy target to mock. This is like Carter wearing a sweater to show how to deal with the energy crisis in the 1970's which he was mocked for. The problem is that we have come to expect big programs from politicians and when one actually tells us that the solution is actually something mundane and practical we see that as a failure of leadership because it doesn't strike us as something awe inspiring. The sad part about this is that the mundane is a lot more affective than some big flashy program.
He said that if everyone had their tires properly inflated, we'd save as much oil as we'd get by drilling. Those are his words. Sorry, that's bullcrap. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/07/021122.php It's not even close. Do I think that encompasses his entire energy plan? Of course not. But by saying what he did, he's either a liar or is badly misinformed(I'm going with option #2). The fact that people in the media are gonna try to spin this remark in Obama's favor shows how low we've sunk.
We actually worked a problem dealing with this issue in my biological physics class this past semester. The question was posed as follows: Question: What is the net decrease in fuel efficiency resulting from a 25% decrease in the tire pressure relative to the recommended tire pressure? The car is moving at a constant speed of 60 mph. Assumptions: 1) Model the tire as a right cylinder with a contact area of a rectangle, 2) The change in pressure is small enough to have relatively little effect on overall shape of the tire, i.e the car is not running on a flat. 3) There is constant non-tire drag. 4) Deformation can be modeled as a spring where Fd = ΔR*Ks Data for a 2000 Subaru: Cruise Torque (60 mph) -166ft-lbs Cruise Fuel Consumption- 30 mpg Curb Weigh -3090 lbs Recommended tire pressure -29 psi Tire Width-8.46” Tire Radius (Undeformed) – 13.08” Answer: 11% decrease in efficiency, see image for work.
hey dont bring that physics crap in here....people want to make up their minds based on their pre-concived notions and party affliations
You shouldn't post analysis from Powerline. From the page you linked to: "How does this stack up against "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling?" ANWR: 10 billion barrels Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned) Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels" The processing of oil shale is a different issue from "drilling". From the numbers above, you can see what the correct omission of oil shale from the calculation does to Powerline's assertion. Again, you shouldn't post analysis from Powerline.
as much as i was disappointed about the strategic reserve issue, i'm glad obama redeemed himself on this. this is why he's the better candidate, he answered a question off the cuff, no teleprompter, and it was the straight dope. and after the neocons make their little childish jokes, people are going to analyze what he said, and realize it was a great answer. and mccain will look like the no idea candidate he is who can only react to obama. thanks for the post major priceless
VL, I don't know what to tell you other than you are several standard deviations below my intelligence level. You are so far behind in this discussion, it is not worth my time to catch you up. Please go to the GARM and debate who can jump higher, Gerald Green or Donte Green. Thanks.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pkytVjgn-Uc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pkytVjgn-Uc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Fair enough. We'll exclude the oil shale. That still leaves an approximate 28 billion barrels(although it could be a lot more). If we're saving 90 million barrels a year from properly inflated tires, it would take over 311 years to reach that 28 billion total. Again, Obama's math doesn't add up.
yeah attack me.. not the article.. do you disagree that a small decrease in demand can significantly affect prices? and you call yourself a practicing economist.. book economist maybe.. LOL and its Donte Greene not Donte Green rookie..
How many years would it take to get the 28 billion barrels? Having 28B barrels means nothing if its all sitting underground. Are you saying the energy department is wrong about their 73 million barrel / day estimate by 2030? If so, any evidence for that?
